On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:29:34AM -0700, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > 2016-04-15 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Christian König > > <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Might be that how amdgpu uses the fence context and sequence number is a bit > > > questionable, but this will completely break it. > > > > You mean it tries to qualesce fences in the same context down to just > > the last one? That's how it's supposed to be done, and > > fence_collections do break this somewhat. Without fixing up > > fence_is_later and friends. Sounds like amdgpu is a good use case to > > make sure the changes in semantics in these functions result in > > sensible code. In a way a fence_collection is a fence where the > > timeline never matches with any other timeline (since it's a > > combiation). > > > > And yeah I think fence_collection should probably compress down the > > fences to 1 per timeline. But then that's just an implementation > > detail we can fix later on. > > You mean asking for a new context for every collection? That would be one solution, but I fear it's a bit expensive. Having a special-case context for collections might be the better approach. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
